Jonas Sicking: > Like I said in my original posting, that won't work with state that you > need to keep private. Basically here is what would fail: > …
Sorry, I glossed over your original mail and didn’t see you mentioned the UserDataHandler (and why it wouldn’t work). > So in order to set the private data in the clones binding the binding > has to expose some API that lets to set the private data directly. > However this would mean that the data is no longer private and anyone > could at any time change it. Right. So after reading your mail properly, I agree that D would be most useful: have in effect a default copy constructor which can be overridden (by having a function on the implementation object) in case a shallow copy of the properties of the private object isn’t sufficient. -- Cameron McCormack, http://mcc.id.au/ xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ▪ ICQ 26955922 ▪ MSN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
